Richard Poe - The Shadow Party: How George Soros Seized Control of the Democratic Party

Shownotes and Transcript...

George Soros is one, if not the most, dangerous person in the world.

This may sound like an overstatement but our guest today will explain why. 
Richard Poe is a bestselling author and respected journalist, sixteen years ago he co wrote the most comprehensive analysis of the web that Soros has spun worldwide. 
Detailing the connections, control, influence and how the monster we see today was created by the British and nurtured by the Americans. 
This will shine a light on one of the most secretive and powerful individuals and show how ignorance has allowed his ascent.

Richard Poe is a New York Times-bestselling author and award-winning journalist. He has written widely on business, science, history and politics.
His books include The Shadow Party, co-written with David Horowitz; The Einstein Factor, co-written with Win Wenger; Perfect Fear: Four Tales of Terror; Black Spark, White Fire; the WAVE series of network marketing books; and many more.
Richard was formerly editor of David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag, contributing editor of NewsMax, senior editor of SUCCESS magazine, reporter for the New York Post, and managing editor of the East Village Eye.

Connect with Richard...
WEBSITE:     https://www.richardpoe.com/
TWITTER:     https://twitter.com/RealRichardPoe?s=20
SUBSTACK:  https://richardpoe.substack.com/

'The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party'
Available in print, e-book or audio book from Amazon 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shadow-Party-Hillary-Radicals-Democratic/dp/1595551034/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1

Interview recorded 21.6.23

*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.

Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 

To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... 
https://heartsofoak.org/connect/

Please subscribe, like and share!

 

Subscribe now

Transcript

(Hearts of Oak)
Hello, Hearts of Oak, and welcome to another interview coming up with Richard Poe.
He has co-written a book with David Horowitz.
This was back in 2006, but still as relevant today. And that is The Shadow Party, how George Soros, Hilary Clinton and 60s radicals seize control of the Democratic Party.
George Soros is a huge figure, and this is the first book that actually delves into his life and how he's been involved in color revolutions, coups all around the world.
His life story, moving to the States, his involvement with the left.
So much packed in. I know you will really enjoy listening to Richard unpacking delve deep into the life of George Soros.

Thankful to have you with us today. Thank you so much for your time.

(Richard Poe)

Thank you, Peter. Great to be here.

Good to be. And we are going to discuss your book. We're also going to discuss some articles, but just for the viewers.
Richard Poe's probably 10, 11 different books and here are a number of them that we are going to look, Hilary's Secret War, but we're actually going to look today at The Shadow Party, How George Soros, Hilary Clinton and 60s Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party and you wrote that along with David Horowitz, who we've had the privilege of having on before.
And now you're a bestselling author, a journalist, investigative reporter, and people can find at Richard Poe, @RealRichardPoe on Twitter and RichardPoe.com.
And of course, Substack is there as well @RichardPoe.
And I, Richard, I've actually found your your kayak video strangely entertaining, off-topic. I've enjoyed watching them.

You must be a kayaker yourself. 

No, I'm not. No, I am not. I just, I was intrigued. It was a whole, something completely different. So I enjoyed watching your documentary on it.

Well, there is something fascinating about the kayak role. And it took me many years before I finally committed myself to learning it after, but I always used to just be mesmerized to watch people do that, whether on videos or in person, there's something magical about it.
And once you actually learn it, it doesn't feel any less magical.
It's, you know, of course, it's just like anything else. You learn the moves, you learn how to do it, But there's magic in it. It's something that just feels so wonderful. And I just had to make a film.
A short film, five minutes, just trying to convey to people as best I could what this feels like, what it's really like to capsize in a small boat where you're jammed into a cockpit, you know, by your waist, hang upside down in the water, and then turn yourself right side up. You know it's, in a small way, I guess it's like jumping out of a plane with no parachute, and then somehow lifting yourself back onto the plane. Maybe that's too dramatic, but, that's how I like to think of it. 

It's fun watching, of course, it's on your website, people can people can see it and there I mean just in The Shadow Party going to source there's so much to cover we'll we'll not do one of your marathon sessions that you do with Noor Bin Laden, those are all available for the viewers to watch you've just started doing them in video I know and that's all on substack but probably the book it's been out 2006 it came out. What led you to write it because now this is part of the conversation, the whole thing with, money, with control, with Soros. What led you to actually putting pen to paper on the book?

Well I had researched Soros for many years. I first wrote about him in 1993, in my very first published book. It was called How to Profit from the Coming Russian Boom, and I had some expertise in Russia and I had been there as a business writer for Success Magazine. I had gone there a number of times in the early 90s to, cover the fall of communism and Soros was there, you know, he was part of the party, a big part of it. And at that time, I wrote very positively about Mr. Soros because I felt he was one of us, whoever us are, you know, us Westerners who are... And at that time, I believed very much in the Cold War narrative that we of the West represented freedom and democracy and all those good things.
And we had to overcome communism. Communism was the great dragon.
And, so Soros, I felt, was just one more person helping us to dismantle the Soviet Empire and teach the Russians how to become capitalists, quote-unquote, and become like us.
It all seemed like a very noble enterprise at the time, and I wrote very positively about Mr. Soros and everything he was doing in Russia.
I wasn't unaware that there was a dark side to Soros and some of his activities, but well, let's just say I wrote positively about him. And my book was quite influential.
It was praised by the London Financial Times as being the first book to explain the privatization process in Russia, which was done by means of a voucher system.
The government issued vouchers to every Russian citizen, every Soviet citizen, which were worth 10,000, how did it work?
Each one was worth, you could be traded for 10,000 rubles, I think, 10,000 rubles worth of shares in any of the state-owned companies that were being auctioned off.
And what happened, of course, is that this happened after my book came out.
No one had a clue that this was going to happen. Soros and his cronies, they convinced Yeltsin to do shock therapy, as they call it, to basically de-control all prices and currency values, all at the same time, which led to immediate hyperinflation at catastrophic levels.
And so these vouchers became worthless overnight and all the Westerners bought them up, and used them to acquire eventually the crown jewels of the Soviet economy.
So this was one of the things that actually led, this is back in the early 90s, but it led to a lot of the ill feeling, between the Russians and the West, which we're now dealing with today, because at that time, the Russians were really....
There was an innocence about them.
They were really so grateful in many ways. They wanted this kind of help from Westerners, and especially Americans.
They trusted us in a very special way, in a way that they didn't trust other Westerners.
And unfortunately, thanks to Mr. Soros and Jeffrey Sachs, who was working with him on this project, and a lot of people at Harvard University, almost instantaneously with the image of America as friend and savior was destroyed and we were perceived as a gang of thieves who were coming to strip the country of all its wealth. And I don't think that perception has ever left. So I was aware of that as it was happening, but as I said, that happened after my book was published.
So my book was totally positive about Soros, but...
Please tell me if I'm going to too many details about this, but to me it's a very interesting story because, see, Soros himself had declined my request to be interviewed for the book, but he did kindly allow me to interview some of his people, and I had some expectation that maybe, you know, Soros would like the book, it might lead to some further talks, interviews, whatever. But instead what happened is, I think it was only two years after my book came out, a very similar book came out. And this happens a lot in publishing, by the way. If they, the aesthetic of a certain book, they actually replace it with a similar book. So my book was called How to Profit from the Coming Russian Boom. This other book comes out a couple years later, I think it was from the Free Press.
And it was called The Coming Russian Boom. They basically took a fragment of my title and made this other book, which also looked kind of similar, the cover design. And on the back of this replacement book, this book that was meant to replace mine, was a big plug by George Soros himself saying, if you want to read a book by real Russia insiders who really know what's going on, read this book. And just to make it clear, a known Soros operative wrote a review saying, Richard Poe's book is now totally out of date. You should now read this new book, which has an almost identical title to his and a similar colour design and which was published only two years later.
So you ask, how did I first come across Mr. Soros? Well, it was that. Was I particularly upset? No, not really. I was on to other things, you know, writing other books. I just thought, Well, that's a little curious.
But I think the reason they did that, I think the reason my book was disliked is one for the very reason that the Financial Times had said, because I had given such a clear, explanation of the privatization process and how it worked, and then shortly thereafter Soros and his cronies had completely corrupted the privatization process.
So I think that was one thing that I did bad. And another thing I did, was I told the truth about the corruption in the Moscow city government, and I was clued in by certain people in Russia that Mayor Lushkov, who I had accused by name, was very disturbed with me, and that sales of my book in Moscow, particularly in the crucial airport bookstores where foreigners would be likely to buy it had been banned.
And so, this was my very first book. You know, it got a star for excellence from Publishers Weekly, got reviewed in all the right places but obviously Mr. Soros didn't like it.
He endorsed this competing book which appears to have been manufactured for the express purpose of outdating mine.
So anyway, I don't mean to go into all that except just to emphasize that me and Mr. Soros go back quite a ways.
I first ran across him, one might say ran afoul of him in Russia in the early 90s, as did so many people.
And so then much later in 2004, I got a phone call from Chris Ruddy, the founder and editor of Newsmax.
I was one of the original columnists at Newsmax. It was started in 1998, I believe, and I started in 1999.
And Chris called me up. He says, look, we wanna do a big expose about George Soros and put it on the cover of Newsmax magazine. Would you like to write it?
I said, sure, let's do it.
And so, that led to my next encounter indirectly with Soros. I never actually have met him or communicated with him in person or directly, but it seemed every time I ran across him, something ill-omened occurred, you know, it was strange.
So, I wrote this article, which seemed a perfectly legitimate exercise of free speech in the home of the free and the brave, the United States of America as working journalists.
Why shouldn't we write an expose of George Soros? After all, he was coming out very publicly, speaking out on political matters, saying he was going to donate $25 million to oust President Bush from office.
And that's why Newsmax wanted to write about him, all seemingly fair game, you know, and the type of thing one would normally write about.
Well, so I wrote, what I wrote about was the same subject I'm writing about now, all these years later, that what Soros was actually doing, and what he was boasting that he was going to do was to go outside of the normal bounds of political electioneering in the United States.
And he said, what I have done in other countries, I am now going to do in the United States.
And he said, actually, he was going to do a regime change, quote unquote, to remove President Bush.
So I was familiar at that point in large part because I had some experience in Russia, in Eastern Europe.
I knew what a colour revolution was. Most people didn't at that time.
I knew that Soros was involved in these things, and I knew he had helped overthrow a number of governments, not only in Eastern Europe, but all over the world.
People think he just does this in Eastern Europe. He's done it in Africa, Asia, everywhere.
But, um...When I heard Soros saying these things, I knew exactly what he meant, and I felt I need to explain this to the American people.
And so my article was called George Soros' Coup, and it basically explained this guy does color revolutions, and he seems to be implying that he's going to do that here in the United States.
Well, it didn't quite happen in the election of 2004, although there were some strange goings-ons from the Democrat side.
But for our story right now, what is interesting is that my Newsmax cover story was a big success.
I was immediately called to appear on The O'Reilly Factor with Bill O'Reilly.
And I did a seven-minute spot on The O'Reilly Factor. The very next day, a completely new outfit, called Media Matters for America, which George Soros had helped to found. It was it was something he and Hilary Clinton and John Podesta and a few others had been totally involved with from the ground floor. So, they attacked me, in a way I'd never been attacked. I mean, there must have been three, four different articles all all about little old me, and basically saying that I was a liar, that I got all my facts wrong.
You know, saying exactly the things that if they were true, would completely disqualify me to work as a journalist ever again.
They were in fact defamatory. And...

Well, can I just step back a little bit just to continue now, but colour revolution, it's something you have mentioned as a phrase, and I know there's a great article, we might get into the British aspect of it, but How the British Invented Colour Revolutions, you wrote back May 2021, and that's available on your substack, but that term colour revolutions probably will not mean anything to many people. It's still a term which isn't widespreadly used. Do you want to just touch on that to let the viewers know what you mean by a color revolution?

Sure. A color revolution is basically, it's just a term that's used to describe what is basically a fake revolution. When foreign intelligence services go into a country and create a fake revolution which is meant to look like a people's uprising, a spontaneous uprising of the people, but is actually a foreign-sponsored coup, hiding behind the facade of a people's uprising. And just to give an example, not to get into my recent articles, but I recently discovered and have argued in some recent articles that the French Revolution and the Russian Revolutions were, in fact, color revolutions.
It is my contention that the British Secret Services were behind both.
But that's just to give an example where a revolution that most of us until now, until recently, have assumed, entailed some kind of spontaneous uprising by an aggrieved population.
Yes, to some extent they were, but this, whatever discontent among the people may have manipulated by foreign intelligence services, making it a fake revolution, making it a foreign-sponsored coup, and this type of revolution has been nicknamed in recent years a color revolution.
It's called that because often these revolutions use team colours to identify themselves.
That for example, there was a so-called orange revolution in the Ukraine in 2004.
And if you look at pictures on Google, you'll see crowds in a sea of orange banners, orange everything.
And interestingly, even going back to the French and the Russian revolutions, They too had their team colors, team symbols.
The French, of course, had their tricolour badges and their so-called Phrygian caps that they wore.
Which were red with the tricolour badge on it.
In the Bolshevik Revolution, of course, the colour was red again, red for socialism, red for communism.
And they also wore a distinctive cap called the Scythian cap, which looks strangely like the Phrygian cap that the French had worn, but whatever.
So even in such details as the use of these kind of evocative coloured symbols, and they weren't always colours.
Sometimes they were flowers or other kinds of symbols.
But they're called colour revolutions for that reason, because somebody decided to name them that.
Originally, the first one that came to wide public attention was the so-called Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, during the fall of communism.
And that too was, George Soros was heavily involved in that, as were many Western governments and intelligence agencies and so forth.
And that was called the Velvet Revolution. It still is to this day.
And that term Velvet Revolution actually caught on in Eastern Europe for quite a bit.
Often these revolutions were called Velvet Revolutions, but somewhere along the line, they started calling them Colour Revolutions and that stuck.
So I now use the term, it's not my favourite term, but that's what it means.
A fake revolution generally orchestrated by a foreign intelligence agency or agencies, to masquerade as a popular uprising. And so George Soros has been involved in these, for many decades, funding them, being a public apologist for them, going before the press just to justify them and basically act as a propaganda voice to explain why it was necessary to do these.
And the propaganda is very necessary because generally what happens in these so-called colour revolutions is that an election occurs, somebody wins, and that somebody is not the person whom the Western powers wanted to win. And so then they create an uprising saying the election was stolen, it was all fake, it doesn't match the exit polls, so let's bring all the people out into the street, often with quite a good deal of real violence. These things are often called bloodless coups, but I think they are rarely bloodless, and often they involve pretty significant violence.
Certainly in 2000, when they overthrew Milosevic in Yugoslavia, there was very significant violence.
They set fire to the parliament building.
They had armed paramilitaries blocking all the roads around Belgrade, armed with military weapons.
And... So, although they're considered bloodless, stereotypically, they're usually not.
Any more than the Russian or French revolutions were. So, that's what it is. It seems like an exotic idea, but it's really not. Governments have been doing this for ages, but the British, in particular, I've learned in the last few years, have been doing this for centuries and really excel at it. It's often assumed that Americans are the ones who invented this and who are the best at doing it, but it's not true. Whatever we know, we learned from the Brits. 

Let's go on Soros, because Soros, he obviously ended up in London as a refugee, then went to LSE, London School of Economics, went to the U.S. and it seemed to be that his desire was to to make money and return and something kind of happened on the way to the point where I think the midterms, I read somewhere what was a figure was a hundred and twenty eight million dollars I read and that made him the largest single donor in the midterms just past that election cycle and kind of something happened along the way for him just wanting to make money to actually being part of a mass funding campaign off the left? 

Well I gave my theory on this very subject in a recent article called How the British Invented George Soros and basically the answer to your question, I think, is that Soros is not his own man. It is my contention that he was recruited as an asset of the British government, the British Foreign Office, and possibly of British intelligence agencies. The fact is that he has been from the beginning involved in activities such as regime change.
In foreign countries, activities which, frankly, he would not be allowed to take part in unless, he were under the supervision of some intelligence agency or another. And it's often assumed that he works with the CIA and that he is a CIA asset, and that's generally the default position that most people take. But I believe that he is a British asset, and I made what I think is a pretty strong argument for it in my article. He came to England as a refugee from a communist Hungary when he was 17 years old. He lived in England for 9 or 10 years, during which he
graduated from the London School of Economics. He started work in the city of London, learned the arbitrage trade. And during that time, it appears he was selected by a group of very powerful men who include some of the most famous names in global finance. And he was sent, I believe, to the United States to basically act as an agent for this group, this cabal, if you will, of British financiers. And one Lord William Rees-Mogg, who happens to be the father of Jacob Rees-Mogg, I have named him the man who created George Soros because he almost single-handedly created the legend or the myth of Soros as one, the greatest financial genius in the world, and two, as quote-unquote the man who broke the Bank of England.
These myths, and I think both are myths, actually.
Both of these myths were created and promoted by Lord Rees-Mogg and his colleagues at the Times of London. Rees-Mogg was the editor of the Times for I think 15 years and then he became a vice president of the BBC. But perhaps more importantly, he has a very unique position, or he had, he died in 2012, I call him a gateway or a bridge between worlds, because he was a man who was a very close personal friend of the British royal family, and he was also a very close personal friend of Lord Jacob Rothschild. And he was a bridge between the British aristocracy, you know, the British blue blood society, if you will, and the grubby world of City of London investment, where one had to rub shoulders with such characters as Hungarian refugees, such as George Soros.
And Rees Mogg had that job. He moved between those worlds and he was a bridge between those worlds.
And it's a little known fact that Soros' quantum fund,
Soros actually leaked in one of his books, it was an authorized, and I think Soros actually commissioned this book, it was called George Soros, Messianic Billionaire, something like that by a guy named Kaufman. And in that book is a leak that the Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II, was one of the investors in the Quantum Fund. Now, there's a great deal of secrecy, as you know, regarding investments by the royal family, this information is closely guarded, but quite often they leak information about where they're investing, such as famously in the mining company Rio Tinto. There were a number of quasi-official leaks about royal investments in that company. And I think they do this in order to pump the stock. I mean, I think when these leaks occur, it's because they're trying to pump the stock. And there was such a leak regarding Soros' quantum fund. So I think, and it appears to me that Soros was really an artificially created person. I don't believe at all that he was was the greatest genius in the financial world.
I think he was built up into that by Lord Rees-Mogg.
And for example, his greatest act of genius supposedly was breaking the Bank of England.
Where in 1992, he supposedly shorted the Bank of England to such an extent that Britain was forced to devalue its currency by 20% And it was a huge catastrophe.
But in reality.
That story, actually, the story that Soros did it, comes from Soros himself.
And it can't be proven because his operations are in the Netherlands Antilles, which is a secrecy jurisdiction, a banking haven.
And there is no way to prove what he actually did in that operation.
But it's come out that there were many, many players, including some of the biggest banks, biggest pension funds, biggest financial institutions in the world who were taking part in that run on the pound.
And Soros was allowed by Rees-Mogg and his colleagues at the Times to take credit for it.
And they actually named him in a big banner headline, the man who broke the Bank of England.
But he was just one among many and by far not the largest.
So, why did Rees-Mogg do this? Well, he quickly demonstrated that because Rees-Mogg's next move was then to write a series of articles explaining to the British people why Soros was a hero and that his devaluation of the pound had saved Britain from having to honour its commitment to enter the Eurozone because by devaluing the pound by 20%, Britain was no longer qualified to enter the European exchange rate mechanism and was no longer qualified to become part of the Eurozone, and that's why it still isn't to this day.
And so Rees-Mogg just sang the praises of Soros, called him a hero.
He said there should be a statue erected in front of the treasury of him and things like that.
And other British journalists have said similar things, that he should get a knighthood and so forth and so on.
So that's why I say it was all a myth. Soros himself didn't actually do it single-handedly.
And moreover, far from being an attack on the British establishment, It appears to have been a British economic warfare operation which the British establishment deliberately inflicted on its own central bank for political purposes, and for which Soros was assigned to take the blame or to take the credit.
So once he had done that operation, then he was very famous.
He had become a celebrity overnight.
The Times was doing everything it could to convince people he was a wonderful guy.
And they immediately started saying what a genius and a financial prophet he was.
And Rees-Mogg started saying, oh my goodness, Soros is buying gold.
Let's pay attention to what he's doing because if he's buying gold, maybe we should buy gold too.
So what happened was, I think this was in 1993, Soros's next assignment for this group around Rees-Mogg and Jacob Rothschild.
His next assignment was to buy a large number of shares of Newmont Mining Corporation, I think was and is the largest gold mining operation in North America, and he bought them from Jacob Rothschild and Sir James Goldsmith. And so Rees-Mogg, was telling everyone from the Times, look, Soros is buying gold, but some people noticed, well, yes, but Rothschild and Goldsmith are dumping it.
So what does that mean?
Despite these ambiguities and puzzlements, they did succeed in hyping the price of gold.
The price of gold skyrocketed.
Rothschild and Goldsmith made a killing, as I think did some of their other associates in the St. James Capital Group, of which Rees-Mogg was an officer at the time.
And strangely Soros himself supposedly lost money on that deal, which is very interesting because although his myth touts him as a lone wolf who only looks out for number one for himself.
It really looks like he took one for the team in the great gold scam, as I call it, this gold hyping scam.
It appears to have been done for the specific purpose of allowing Jacob Rothschild and Sir James Goldsmith to realize a profit on their previous purchases of Newmont Mining, which had been performing sluggishly.
And so this operation appears to have been done for no other reason than to allow these two men, to make some money. And Soros took a hit on that one. He took a hit for the team.
He was a team player. So based on these kinds of things, I mean it goes on and on.
You could say it's kind of circumstantial evidence, but it's pretty clear that from the beginning,
Soros, whatever his gifts and abilities may have been, I'm sure he's very smart, I'm sure he was selected because he was deemed to be a talented person and all that, but he certainly is not the greatest financial genius in the world, that's not how he made his money. He made his money by being adopted by this very powerful group in the city of London and serving them, being a good servant and being the public face of them and their operations. And so he went to America and the rest is history. But now today, he's presumably still alive, despite recent reports of his death, I mean, who knows anymore who's alive and dead.

So true. But he has passed it over, we're told, to one of his sons. Do you think it's the end then of that era? Do you think the damage is already done?
Do you think it's being passed over just to keep the financial side and it's not the political engagement?
What are your thoughts as you kind of see that transfer?

Well, I don't imagine that with all the investment which I will say which the British have done in building up the Open Society Institute, I can't imagine they'll simply abandon it. Obviously, it's not going to be the same without George Soros there.
Alex Soros, I presume, is nothing more than a figurehead. The man who runs the Open Society Institute is its president, and he's a guy named Lord Mark Malloch Brown, a name with which you may be familiar.
Malloch Brown has a similar career trajectory to Soros. He has been involved for decades in regime change operations in foreign countries, in rigging elections in places like the Philippines, and other such targets.
And then in 2015, He had just, there was a British takeover of this company called Smartmatic, and by the way, Smartmatic is going around suing people for billions of dollars, so if you want me to shut up right now, I will.
I won't say another word. 

Feel free to give us your opinion, Richard.

Well, whatever else one may or may not say about Smartmatic, what they did was sell voting, a voting system. And so in 2015, the same Lord Mark Malloch Brown, who had notoriously been doing regime change operations all over the world, obviously connected with intelligence.
He was a high-level UN official under Kofi Annan.
I mean, this guy was obviously, you know, had some role in the intelligence community, I would say. I would say it's obvious.
But now he's running the Open Society Institute, but he was given that position right after the US election in 2020. And some people said that was his reward.
I'm not gonna comment about that.
But his Smartmatic machines and software became very controversial. And in 2015, he was openly trying to market his Smartmatic system to the United States.
In the States, it's the state governments which purchase, you know, they each has its own policy for voting systems.
So he was trying to sell these to state governments and people often say, well, he never succeeded.
I mean, they have a few Smartmatic machines in LA, supposedly, and not nowhere else.
All I can tell you is.
And this I believe is the very subject of this multi-billion dollar lawsuit that's going on, but there were people in high places who seemed to be in the know, who were close to the Trump campaign.
I believe Rudy Giuliani was one, Sidney Powell, others who were basically saying that the Smartmatic software was actually being used by other companies to run other voting machines and that in fact the Smartmatic software was the evil potion that enabled them to do all these alleged alterations of the vote.
So, is any of that true? Well, I don't know. I can't prove it. And, you know, anybody who opened their mouth in public and spoke of it is now being sued.
You know, defamation law is a very good thing. People should be allowed to sue for defamation.
I do think it's very odd to have foreign companies providing voting software to the United States of America and then being able to sue people into silence who legitimately raise questions about the integrity of those systems. I find that very strange and disturbing.
But that's what's going on. You know, back in 2000, I remember very well, there was a dispute, started by, you know, Gore. Gore challenged the election result, famously, and for weeks and weeks and weeks, the world watched in astonishment and horror as the United States seemingly descended into a third world country unable to count its own votes. But no one at that time ever suggested that people should not be allowed to have an opinion or to speak?
About whether they thought that Bush or Gore had won. That would have been unthinkable.
Suddenly that's the case. Suddenly that's the situation we're in.
But anyway, whatever that means. So this Lord Mark Malloch Brown was right in the middle of that, right in the middle of that storm, right in the eye of the storm.
And let me just remind you that he was a long-time friend and collaborator of George Soros.
In fact he lived next door to Soros in a house provided by Soros in upstate New York when Malloch Brown was working as a UN official.
He was some sort of aid to Kofi Annan and he was basically put up by Soros.
And they're very good friends. And they've collaborated on many regime change operations throughout the world, which is not the sort of thing every normal person gets involved in.
But these two, for them, that's a big part of their lives and has been for decades.
So strangely, you know, this same Malloch Brown ends up as the CEO of Smartmatic.
And then as soon as that operation is finished, he's appointed by Soros to be the president of the Open Society Institute. And now he's disappeared from sight.
And everyone's pointing to Alex Soros saying, Alex Soros is now going to take over for George Soros, and that's fine, but I've got my eye on Malloch Brown.
I mean, I doubt very much whether Alex Soros is actually running it.
In fact, I remember some years ago, Soros actually tried to pass on the baton to, at that time, I think all his sons, If I remember correctly, he was trying to...
He was trying to turn over Soros Fund Management, which is his investment arm, to his sons, and then he all of a sudden reneged and took it back. And people said, I thought you were going to give this to your sons, why did you take it back?
And Soros, here's an interesting father figure for you.
He said, well, I discovered that my sons didn't have the talent to run it. And the interviewer said, what sort of talent do you mean? He said the talent for making money.

Wow. 

So without going into all the Freudian or psychoanalytic aspects of it, I mean, whatever else one can say about Mr. Soros' sons, I can't imagine they're big fans of their father.

Can I just finish off on the book. In 2010, Glenn Beck did a series, Puppetmaster, that was based on the shadow party on your book. I know he was cancelled soon after on Fox.
I don't know whether it was linked to that, but this was probably the first book to expose sources funding off of color revolutions which we've discussed. It's not something that people are supposed to discuss and then you produce this book by a large publisher which I always find intriguing. Maybe it would be different if you redid it today but that with Glenn Beck putting that in and bringing it with Glenn Beck's reach on Fox and then getting cancelled this obviously is something that you're not supposed to discuss.

Yes, at that time, it was an extremely sensitive subject. I did not realize how sensitive it was until after I put my foot into the punji steak, so to speak.
But I knew I was pushing it, and that's part of the reason why I invited my then employer, David Horowitz.
I actually invited him to co-write the book with me, hoping that his name would not only help promote the book, and make people take it seriously, but I thought maybe it might afford some protection for me.
And I think it did all of those things to some extent.
I think it would have been much worse for me if I had tried to write the book myself, I think it was a wise thing to do.
But nonetheless, I was punished quite severely by the powers that be for daring to write about that, because these color revolutions, these are intelligence operations, and especially at that time when people were not writing about it, when to write about such things and to do it with a co-author of the stature of David Horowitz, and then to appear on Glenn Beck reaching you know an audience of millions, a national audience on Fox News. If you're in the national security establishment, if you're somebody who's involved with these operations and you're trying to project a certain image of their innocence and spontaneity and then someone comes along and puts out a narrative that says, oh actually this guy George Soros is pulling the strings behind these things. Well, you know, we can see now how sensitive, a lot of these intelligence people are to anyone tampering with their narrative, you know, with all the recent hysteria over misinformation and disinformation.
And so forth. Well, they didn't used to speak so publicly about it, still pretending, that they weren't involved in media, that is, the intelligence community. Now they've dropped that pretence. Back then, we still were allowed to have this illusion that we are a free press, and we can say what we want and all that, but clearly I was interfering with a very important intelligence narrative.
And
I was doing so almost uniquely, and certainly the size of the platform that I had accessed was, and getting on national TV and all the rest, it was a challenge to the,
It was a challenge to the national security establishment, whatever you want to call them, to the security forces, if you will. It was a direct challenge to them, and I was a small target, nobody else was writing about this. So it was a simple matter to silence me. And I want to say, you know, we talk a lot today about cancellation, and you know, people being cancelled and un-personed.
And it's important to understand, you know, nowadays we see Tucker publicly thrown out of Fox News and we think that's what it means to be cancelled or Matt Taibi kicked out of The Intercept.
And so we have this illusion that to be cancelled means that you're publicly punished for doing something good and thrown out and then everyone rallies to your rescue and you're even bigger and better than before. And supposedly that's what it means to be cancelled. But those are not real cancellations. The way cancellation is really done, and the way it's been done traditionally, and the way it's done usually, especially in free societies like ours, is very quietly, behind the scenes, very insidiously, so that nobody even knows it happened.
And that's all I'm going to say about that. 

Well, that's perfect end. And let's again just leave the viewers the shadow party, how George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and 60s radicals seized control of the Democrat Party.
It's available. I listened to it. You can get his hardback, paperback.
It is a huge subject that is relevant today, if not more relevant than it was in 2006 when you wrote it. Richard, I appreciate your time. Thank you so much for coming along, sharing your thoughts on the book. Thank you. 

Thank you, Peter.